Hot Topics:

'Balancing' species management rule no threat to species (Essay)

Updated:
10/10/2013 10:12:01 PM EDT

By GENE BARR

Any Pennsylvania business seeking permits for development or redevelopment projects must account for the impacts on threatened and endangered species and their critical habitats. This requirement applies to any industry that is required to get clearance to disturb land, such as the building, aggregates and concrete, forest products and resource extraction.

As these industries, as well as the state's numerous smaller to mid-size engineering, planning, surveying and environmental remediation firms that work with the regulated community, can attest, the current process can often lead to unnecessary delays that ultimately increase the overall costs of these projects.

Therefore, striking an appropriate balance between effective threatened and endangered species management and economic development is the impetus behind the bipartisan proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act (S.B. 1047 and H.B. 1576).

The legislation proposes four improvements:

- Standardize the list and management of threatened and endangered species by establishing a consistent and transparent rulemaking process similar to that required of most other state agencies

- Consolidate information into a centralized database managed by the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources

- Grant access to information to those individuals required to consider the impacts or to those involved in conservation efforts

- Protect sensitive data by prohibiting the disclosure of the information to anyone not involved in a development or conservation project

Supporters, which include the Pennsylvania Chamber, believe S.

Advertisement

B. 1047 and H.B. 1576 would bring efficiency, predictability, understanding and transparency to the threatened and endangered species process, fostering responsible development while maintaining appropriate species protection.

Unfortunately, the issue has gotten considerable negative attention recently as a result of misinformation and lack of understanding about the intent, scope and purpose of the act.

The legislation would not diminish the authority of the Fish and Boat Commission or the Game Commission to list endangered species. It simply proposes to make these agencies' rulemakings subject to the very same regulatory review process followed by other state agencies, including the Department of Environmental Protection and the Department of Conservation and Natural Resources for its threatened and endangered species designations. This is an open, transparent and consensus-building process that allows all stakeholders involved in a rulemaking the opportunity to provide input to the Independent Regulatory Review Commission, which is responsible for determining whether a proposed regulation meets certain criteria, including the protection of public health, safety, welfare and the effect on natural resources. Stakeholders do not just include businesses; they include environmental advocacy groups and the regulatory agencies themselves, not to mention the general public.

The IRRC has been reviewing DEP and DCNR regulations for decades and no one questions its expertise to do so. The regulatory review process would ensure that there is consensus-based science and data to support an action to designate species as threatened or endangered.

Alleviating a major concern for some sportsmen groups, the legislation does not impact game species management, which includes regulations related to hunting and fishing seasons or bag and creel limits, etc. The measure would only apply to threatened and endangered species and trout stream designations.

Finally, to suggest, as some have, that the regulatory review process is designed to favor the business community is far from accurate. Because the regulatory review process is truly based on stakeholder engagement, and does consider an array of factors and opinions in the rulemaking process, final regulations are not always in the best interest of the business community or any specific stakeholder for that matter. Most environmental regulations contain provisions that prove costly for certain industries even as other provisions might be acceptable to business. Business and industry only ask to have the same input in the PGC and PFBC regulatory process as it is afforded with other agencies.

There are some who believe shortsightedly that economic considerations should have no bearing on species protection or habitat preservation. To the contrary, the regulated community and other supporters of the proposed Endangered Species Coordination Act believe that endangered species management and economic development can and should coexist, that there should be a balance between the two. Lawmakers can make sure that occurs by advancing this responsible legislation.

------

Gene Barr is president and CEO of the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business and Industry.